On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 2:20 PM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2024-11-12 at 13:53 -0800, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> > On Tue, 2024-11-12 at 21:39 +0000, Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > > + if (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL &&
> > > > > + imm32 == BPF_CALL_IMM(bpf_get_cpu_cycles)) {
> > > > > + /* Save RDX because RDTSC will use EDX:EAX to return u64 */
> > > > > + emit_mov_reg(&prog, true, AUX_REG, BPF_REG_3);
> > > > > + if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_LFENCE_RDTSC))
> > > > > + EMIT_LFENCE();
> > > > > + EMIT2(0x0F, 0x31);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /* shl RDX, 32 */
> > > > > + maybe_emit_1mod(&prog, BPF_REG_3, true);
> > > > > + EMIT3(0xC1, add_1reg(0xE0, BPF_REG_3), 32);
> > > > > + /* or RAX, RDX */
> > > > > + maybe_emit_mod(&prog, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_3, true);
> > > > > + EMIT2(0x09, add_2reg(0xC0, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_3));
> > > > > + /* restore RDX from R11 */
> > > > > + emit_mov_reg(&prog, true, BPF_REG_3, AUX_REG);
> > > >
> > > > Note: The default implementation of this kfunc uses __arch_get_hw_counter(),
> > > > which is implemented as `(u64)rdtsc_ordered() & S64_MAX`.
> > > > Here we don't do `& S64_MAX`.
> > > > The masking in __arch_get_hw_counter() was added by this commit:
> > > > 77750f78b0b3 ("x86/vdso: Fix gettimeofday masking").
> > >
> > > I think we already discussed it with Alexey in v1, we don't really need
> > > any masking here for BPF case. We can use values provided by CPU
> > > directly. It will never happen that within one BPF program we will have
> > > inlined and non-inlined implementation of this helper, hence the values
> > > to compare will be of the same source.
> > >
> > > > Also, the default implementation does not issue `lfence`.
> > > > Not sure if this makes any real-world difference.
> > >
> > > Well, it actually does. rdtsc_ordered is translated into `lfence; rdtsc`
> > > or `rdtscp` (which is rdtsc + lfence + u32 cookie) depending on the cpu
> > > features.
> >
> > I see the following disassembly:
> >
> > 0000000000008980 <bpf_get_cpu_cycles>:
> > ; {
> > 8980: f3 0f 1e fa endbr64
> > 8984: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 0x8989 <bpf_get_cpu_cycles+0x9>
> > 0000000000008985: R_X86_64_PLT32 __fentry__-0x4
> > ; asm volatile(ALTERNATIVE_2("rdtsc",
> > 8989: 0f 31 rdtsc
> > 898b: 90 nop
> > 898c: 90 nop
> > 898d: 90 nop
> > ; return EAX_EDX_VAL(val, low, high);
> > 898e: 48 c1 e2 20 shlq $0x20, %rdx
> > 8992: 48 09 d0 orq %rdx, %rax
> > 8995: 48 b9 ff ff ff ff ff ff ff 7f movabsq $0x7fffffffffffffff, %rcx # imm = 0x7FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
> > ; return (u64)rdtsc_ordered() & S64_MAX;
> > 899f: 48 21 c8 andq %rcx, %rax
> > ; return __arch_get_hw_counter(1, NULL);
> > 89a2: 2e e9 00 00 00 00 jmp 0x89a8 <bpf_get_cpu_cycles+0x28>
> >
> > Is it patched when kernel is loaded to replace nops with lfence?
> > By real-world difference I meant difference between default
> > implementation and inlined assembly.
>
> Talked with Vadim off-list, he explained that 'rttsc nop nop nop' is
> indeed patched at kernel load. Regarding S64_MAX patching we just hope
> this should never be an issue for BPF use-case.
> So, no more questions from my side.
since s64 question came up twice it should be a comment.
nop nop as well.
pw-bot: cr
